ForumGarden

I see the phrase "Christ died for us" in a post back awhile. Jesus died because he was seen as a threat to good law and order according to the Roman Empire. One might say he was executed for treason. The atonement theology says more about God then about Jesus. What kind of God would demand a blood sacrifice even if it was his son? It seems to me that atonement theology is a curse to God.

LarsMac;1485117 wrote: So, who around here gives a fiddlyfart about Dogma?

(Well, besides you, apparently)


What did they name this part of the forum and why are you here if not to discuss dogma?

Regards

DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1485182 wrote: What did they name this part of the forum and why are you here if not to discuss dogma?

Regards

DL


Specifically, Religions & Beliefs > General Religious Discussions > Jesus of Nazareth

Hmm, nope. Don't see Dogma there, at all.

I should also add that Jesus was a sh*t disturber.

As much import as Paul put on the death and resurrection, the message of Jesus was intended to be about faith.

This man gave his life over to the plan that was given him. It was his faith that should be remembered.

God said, do this, and it will be OK. Jesus had his moment of fear, and even doubt, but he went forward in spite of his fear and doubt.

That should be the message of the Gospel. Faith and Courage, in the face of adversity and trouble and even death.

LarsMac;1485234 wrote: Specifically, Religions & Beliefs > General Religious Discussions > Jesus of Nazareth

Hmm, nope. Don't see Dogma there, at all.


I made my point I see.:-4

Regards

DL

Ted;1485273 wrote: I should also add that Jesus was a sh*t disturber.


A trait I hope I share with him.

I think that that trait is why Constantine's Christians decimated us and burned our scriptures.

Free thinking **** disturbers was the last thing he wanted to rule over. He wanted a slave nation and not one with people who could think and not just do as ordered.

Regards

DL

LarsMac;1485297 wrote: As much import as Paul put on the death and resurrection, the message of Jesus was intended to be about faith.

This man gave his life over to the plan that was given him. It was his faith that should be remembered.

God said, do this, and it will be OK. Jesus had his moment of fear, and even doubt, but he went forward in spite of his fear and doubt.

That should be the message of the Gospel. Faith and Courage, in the face of adversity and trouble and even death.


Do you really want to discuss this dogma? :wah:

But seriously. You have a point but without the carrot and stick aspect of Christianity, the carrot being salvation from the God who condemned everyone, the stick, then Christianity would not exist.

We needed some religion to show us what not to do or accept in terms of Christians helping to usher in the Dark Ages of free thought and thee notions of Inquisition.

Note how well I S has learned from Christianity and are trying to duplicate Christian success with the same basic tactics.

Regards

DL

A God who slays thousands of Egyptians, orders the Hebrew to invade and take over a country and slaughter every one (war crimes) , a God who condemns a whole nation to wandering and starving in the desert, A God who led Moses on this Journey but refused to allow her/his/it ' devout servant to succeed in his appointed task. (Not one shred of evidence for the Exodus. a God who is so petulant that he demands a blood sacrifice even if it is It's own sun. Some God. That is not the Divine I have experienced and love. I like the God who gave us the "sermon on the mount> No blood and gore there just love.

Did Constantine make some mistakes?? You bet just like the rest of us.

Ted;1485364 wrote: A God who slays thousands of Egyptians, orders the Hebrew to invade and take over a country and slaughter every one (war crimes) , a God who condemns a whole nation to wandering and starving in the desert, A God who led Moses on this Journey but refused to allow her/his/it ' devout servant to succeed in his appointed task. (Not one shred of evidence for the Exodus. a God who is so petulant that he demands a blood sacrifice even if it is It's own sun. Some God. That is not the Divine I have experienced and love. I like the God who gave us the "sermon on the mount> No blood and gore there just love.


That was the Jesus whose words came from Sumer and Egypt.

So says this other Canuk.

2007-Doc Zone - Pagan Christ 1 of 3 - vidéo dailymotion

Regards

DL

Ted;1485366 wrote: Did Constantine make some mistakes?? You bet just like the rest of us.


Absolutely but his was a good strategy that went too far. Rome lost control after Constantine died.

I think Rome died because they had killed off most of the intelligentsia of the day and that those were mostly Jews and Gnostic Christians. Those not dead were driven underground and Rome was left with the more stupid.

That is why I call what he did with his new church the ushering in of the Dark Ages of free thought.

Regards

DL

A position you are free to believe. We all make mistakes and misinterpretations. Just that some are more defensive than others and refuse to acknowledge it and others openly admit they make mistakes and simply don't know everything.

Ted;1485462 wrote: A position you are free to believe. We all make mistakes and misinterpretations. Just that some are more defensive than others and refuse to acknowledge it and others openly admit they make mistakes and simply don't know everything.


True and most of it is likely a lie as the victors write the history according to their own biases. Biases are good but are not always serving us as well as they could.



Regards

DL

Very strange definition and or concept of "lies".

Ted;1485533 wrote: Very strange definition and or concept of "lies".


When the script says that God is unknowable, unfathomable and works in mysterious ways, that is a clear indication that all that is said is surmised and therefore lies.

We could call it speculative nonsense and imaginings if you prefer. Another way of saying lies.

Regards

DL

All of religion could be called speculative nonsense I suppose. When something is said or written in good faith we do not call what they write lies. Only lies to those who have a strange definition of Lies.

Ted;1485364 wrote: A God who slays thousands of Egyptians, orders the Hebrew to invade and take over a country and slaughter every one (war crimes) , a God who condemns a whole nation to wandering and starving in the desert, A God who led Moses on this Journey but refused to allow her/his/it ' devout servant to succeed in his appointed task. (Not one shred of evidence for the Exodus. a God who is so petulant that he demands a blood sacrifice even if it is It's own sun. Some God. That is not the Divine I have experienced and love. I like the God who gave us the "sermon on the mount> No blood and gore there just love.


Geez, I didn't know there are still so many gods around. I would like just one good god, but I reckon that's asking too much.

Now that is funny. LOL

We could add to that the pantheon of ancient Greece. LOL

Yes, quite a few there. I like Gaia and Eros, don't care much for the rest of them.

Lol

Ted;1485758 wrote: All of religion could be called speculative nonsense I suppose. When something is said or written in good faith we do not call what they write lies. Only lies to those who have a strange definition of Lies.


Or a truthful one.

"All of religion could be called speculative nonsense I suppose."

Yes, even if the writer claims faith.

Regards

DL

Just bought a new book by Diana Butler Bass on "Christianity after Religion".

Ted;1486202 wrote: Just bought a new book by Diana Butler Bass on "Christianity after Religion".


Bishop Spong in a skirt.

I agree with much of what she says in terms of the end of religion for a more personal faith.

I just see it as people recognizing what Martin Luther recognized after he broke from the Catholics.

He, like Spong, are/where Gnostic Christian in their thinking and tried to move Christianity from it's foolish literalism.



I am bias but think that all free thinkers will be Gnostic Christians at heart if not in name.

Regards

DL

First of all Spong is a man and not a woman. I should get fuzzy after you for that one. LOL Spong never was a gnostic that I can see. Luther had his own problems. He was anti-Semitic and thought nothing of using the inquisition to get rid of his opponents. Calvin was a part of that same thinking. But I do have to laugh at you thinking you have the correct handle on God. LOL

Ted;1486254 wrote: First of all Spong is a man and not a woman. I should get fuzzy after you for that one. LOL Spong never was a gnostic that I can see. Luther had his own problems. He was anti-Semitic and thought nothing of using the inquisition to get rid of his opponents. Calvin was a part of that same thinking. But I do have to laugh at you thinking you have the correct handle on God. LOL


I was meaning that the authors, a woman, spoke much like Spong except that she wore a skirt.

When did I say I had the correct handle on God?

God to me is an evolving concept and any who would name a God would be an idol worshiper.

Gnostics are perpetual seekers and even after apotheosis, we set aside the God we find, raise the bar of expectation and seek further.

Only a foo and an idol worshiper will name his God anything other than himself.

Are yours and your God's laws not written in your heart and is that not where Jesus says God resides?

These say that he does.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Regards

DL

I just wish people who are trying to prove a point wouldn't quote what some other duckhead said thousands of years ago.

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1486263 wrote: I was meaning that the authors, a woman, spoke much like Spong except that she wore a skirt.


How do you know she wears skirts, is that a sexist presumption or am I a bitch for asking? You talk a lot of women's equality, but you can't see your remark as stereotypical. Or can you?

Fuzzy;1486344 wrote: I just wish people who are trying to prove a point wouldn't quote what some other duckhead said thousands of years ago.


It is that or be considered a new age guru. And I do not mean that in a complimentary way.

Which route do you thinks is more profitable? To take that label or just show that the wisdom is old?

Regards

DL

AnneBoleyn;1486345 wrote: How do you know she wears skirts, is that a sexist presumption or am I a bitch for asking? You talk a lot of women's equality, but you can't see your remark as stereotypical. Or can you?


Sigh.

Ok.

Women are not know for wearing skirts.

I fight hard for women and have a great respect for them but you can go **** yourself.

Regards

DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1486347 wrote: It is that or be considered a new age guru. And I do not mean that in a complimentary way.

Which route do you thinks is more profitable? To take that label or just show that the wisdom is old?

Regards

DL


I'm not sure who needs to profit from something here. When it comes to wisdom, I think the 2000+year old wisdom has been outdated thoroughly.

Fuzzy;1486361 wrote: I'm not sure who needs to profit from something here. When it comes to wisdom, I think the 2000+year old wisdom has been outdated thoroughly.


Not to most of the East.

Just the West does not like to learn from introspection.

Regards

DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1486348 wrote: Sigh.

Ok.

Women are not know for wearing skirts.

I fight hard for women and have a great respect for them but you can go **** yourself.



Regards

DL


I doubt that very much. Dream on. Your telling me what I can do proves that. We've done well fighting for ourselves, btw. Find a cause that appreciates your input, if possible.

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1486348 wrote: Sigh.

Ok.

Women are not know for wearing skirts.

I fight hard for women and have a great respect for them but you can go **** yourself.

Regards

DL


Here we go again!

What don't you understand about civility, GCB?

What use in apologising for your previous poor attitude/manners if you respond in this manner?

You're not going to make many friends or win admirers with this nonsense, are you?

Though you may score an infraction point at this rate!

Such would be my suggestion.

AnneBoleyn;1486383 wrote: I doubt that very much. Dream on. Your telling me what I can do proves that. We've done well fighting for ourselves, btw. Find a cause that appreciates your input, if possible.


What is it about go **** yourself that you do not understand.

Regards

DL

Smaug;1486384 wrote: Here we go again!

What don't you understand about civility, GCB?

What use in apologising for your previous poor attitude/manners if you respond in this manner?

You're not going to make many friends or win admirers with this nonsense, are you?

Though you may score an infraction point at this rate!

Such would be my suggestion.


Duly ignored. I do not want or need friend like that ****.

Regards

DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1486391 wrote: Duly ignored. I do not want or need friend like that ****.

Regards

DL


Are you a closet misogynist? Why the vitriol towards AB? How can you think it correct to behave in this way towards AB? Are you a Nazi? I have so many questions....

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1486390 wrote: What is it about go **** yourself that you do not understand.

Regards

DL


AB phrased her comment as a question. You, on the other hand, have made no such attempt, instead resorting to (attempted) profane insult. If that's the best you can do,

then I pity you, and would suggest Facebook might be more appropriate for your

apparent intellect and social skills?

Smaug;1486401 wrote: AB phrased her comment as a question. You, on the other hand, have made no such attempt, instead resorting to (attempted) profane insult. If that's the best you can do,

then I pity you, and would suggest Facebook might be more appropriate for your

apparent intellect and social skills?


At least on Facebook, he would be much easier to ignore

LarsMac;1486402 wrote: At least on Facebook, he would be much easier to ignore


True, Lars!

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1486390 wrote: What is it about go **** yourself that you do not understand.

Regards

DL


Time to stop the insults Gnostic, and apologise to Anne, it is not acceptable to use that phrase here.

Smaug;1486396 wrote: Are you a closet misogynist? Why the vitriol towards AB? How can you think it correct to behave in this way towards AB? Are you a Nazi? I have so many questions....


That being the case -----



Regards

DL

Betty Boop;1486406 wrote: Time to stop the insults Gnostic, and apologise to Anne, it is not acceptable to use that phrase here.


See above.

This issue is now on ignore.

Regards

DL

I had a grade 5 class and they knew what insults or maybe better put, "Put downs". And they had a good grasp of what the cause and the purpose was and knew it to be childish. I thought we were to get rid of childish things.

GCB - As anyone knows I am totally anti Religious, but whenever debating the issue, no matter how heated, I have always managed to remain civil, regardless of how much I may be provoked.

On the matter of whether women wear skirts or not I have no views one way or the other. I consider too petty to even be concerned with. However, I consider your behaviour as being unconscionable & disgraceful. I don't see it as not being any way to speak to a lady, as that, in itself would be sexist. Speaking like that to anyone, male or female is inexcusable.

I have never been one for demanding an apology as I am of the opinion that if it is not offered freely, then it is not sincere but seriously, you should really be ashamed of yourself.

OMG, I think the bishop has been crucified.:wah:

like this

Thank you, but I do not require any apology. GCB insists he "fights for women's equality" but seems to actually know little about the subject. His aggressive words speak in opposition to his claim. I was not offended by his words or opinions, but did wish to shine a light on his hypocrisy. He willingly aided me in this task.

I once called for a ban on Mickiel. I was wrong to do so, & have apologized to him. He accepted my apology, & I was so glad he did. Not necessary, on my part, to ban GCB. I just wish he would learn to be more open & examine his views more closely.

It's not so much his views I found offensive. Rightly or wrongly, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. That is the very essence of a forum - to discuss matters. It was the abusive way it which he worded them that I found offensive. Swearing & blatant insults have no place in a civilised forum.

In a way, though, I hope that this is only a suspension, rather than an outright ban. He has, after all, in previous posts, provided a great deal of positive insight.